posted 10-27-2008 11:01 AM ET (US)            

Having owned a 1979 Montauk, I can compare and contrast the boats, both of which are terrific in their own way. The Dauntless wins in passenger comfort, with more seating and a wider space to walk around the console. We regularly use the Dauntless to shuttle 6 adults and 2-4 small kids out to the beach, complete with beach gear, chairs, cooler, umbrellas, etc. The built-in boarding ladder and step are great for swimming off the boat and getting to the beach. It's amazing what fits in that little boat. It also wins in storage, with a good size console, storage under the aft seats, pilot seat and an anchor locker similar in size to the Mountak. It loses a bit with the 54 qt. cooler instead of the 72 found on most Montauks.

We also fish the boat, primarily in protected water, with occasional trips outside to the Atlantic. We have never used it in true offshore conditions, however on the right day, I wouldn't hesitate to take the boat 6-8 miles out. A big plus for this boat is the range provided by the built-in fuel tank. This also cleans up the deck, and provides storage space under the pilot seat. Fishing space is about the same on both boats, and is comfortable with two, decent with three and starting to get crowded with 4.

With the same 90 h.p., a Montauk is faster to get on plane, and faster overall. The Dauntless is not a dog with a 90, but it does have a bow-up tendency when coming on plane, which I don't particularly like. It's a much heavier boat, and the aft quarter seats tend to encourage passengers to add to the problem. A Doel Fin or similar hydrofoil would probably improve this condition, as would a 115 h.p. outboard, which would be ideal. The Dauntless has a minor advantage in ride, providing a bit more comfort in 1-2 foot chop than the Montauk. Both boats are reasonably dry for their size. One feature I don't like about the Dauntless is the lack of suitable locations for mounting an auxiliary outboard. If you plan to do a lot of trolling or want the security of an extra motor, it will be easier to set up with the Montauk.

The Montauk is also lighter to tow, so if your tow vehicle is marginal, it could be the better choice. That said, the Dauntless is not much of a load, and would be an easy tow for a mid-sized SUV with a V6 or better. Both boats are easy to solo launch and load, so it's a push in that category.

My dad's boat has a Mills sun top (Bimini top) which works well and provides a lot of shade. Unfortunately, it does not fold down inside the bow rail like the sun top on a Montauk, which is a major disadvantage. Instead, it sits on solid uprights, which are always in the way for boarding the boat and when fishing. It can be rested aft, but then it sits on the rails and prevents use of the quarter seats. When we go fishing, we take the hole thing off and leave it in the garage. I really liked the forward shelter on my Montauk, an option that added warmth and dry storage to the boat. In addition, with the rest of the Mills canvas set, the boat could be used as a camp-cruiser, with a home-built sleeping platform. The nod goes to the Montauk if this is on the list of uses for the boat.

The Dauntless comes with exactly zero rod holders, save for the horizontal ones under the gunwales. Carrying rods on this boat is a pain, and Whaler should have put a few flush mount rod holders in the gunwales and near the transom. The Montauk wins here with two in the RPS and 6 more in front of the console. Rail mount rod holder options are the same for both boats.

posted 10-27-2008 11:15 AM ET (US)            

The Outrage 17 is only a 200 lbs heavier than a Montauk but has the a bit more length and beam, 32 gallon floor tank, taller console, baitwell and stern seats. The hull is the full V. Ride is a huge improvement over the Montauk. See my photos http://picasaweb.google.com/CascoBayOutrage/1991Outrage17I#

Since the Outrage 17 was not produced in large numbers, finding one could be a challenge. For this reason, I would elect a Outrage 18. Can't beat it.

While I admire classic and post-classics, I am not a fan of the extra weight of the post-classic designs.

If you have further questions about the Outrage 17, let me know.

CBO

posted 10-27-2008 07:14 PM ET (US)            

- I don't think the aesthetics are so bad, though I'll grant you you'll be disappointed if you're in love with teak.
- While you're on your own for a full canvas enclosure, the 190 Outrage forward shelter fits quite nicely and has done a great job keeping my family out of sun, wind, and rain.
- Fishing for 3 is okay, assuming one of you forgot to bring your gear and just drives the boat.

I've looked at the mini-camper approach, but the center console is pretty far forward on this boat. If you're taller than about 5-foot-2, you can forget about being able to lie down straight on the bow seat and sun lounge. Maybe you could work something out by going along one side of the console.

That said, this is an extremely competent and seaworthy little boat with an incredible extended range. I can put 200 miles under the keel with fuel in reserve. My season average is about 2 gallons/hour, and in optimum conditions I figure the boat runs at about 7 miles/gallon doing about 25 miles/hour. The boat has also handled 5-foot close-packed whitecaps, not with comfort by any means, but without any fear.

-Bob

posted 10-28-2008 08:42 AM ET (US)            

I really prefer a Montauk or shorter Outrage for towability and because I learned to prefer smaller boats when I lived in OR AND because my friends have big boats, including the 32 Vigilant now docked in Muskegon, Dale's 71 Outrage 21 and a Tiara 36 sitting around.

Now if I could find the right Montauk w/ full Mills, good hull, decent trailer and a reasonable motor w/ fair price I'm in. I like the camper/cruiser concept like Buckalew. My biggest concern is, to be clear, I have never been in a Montauk!! I worry about beating passengers to death in chop and assume Outrage is significantly better in that regard. I want to take Ellen's parents who are healthy and active in their mid-80s - they've been in the 13 and loved it.

As regards the inquiry about Dauntless, I have seen (and missed) in excellent condition, low use and very low pricing. That forward deck w/ cushion has Ellen taking a tan all over it. I know I can get a bow cushion for any boat but you get the picture.

Thanks - looking actively for the right boat.

posted 10-28-2008 09:23 AM ET (US)            

Specifically due to the "must take a tan" requirement of your first mate. It's either that or a Dauntless.

Neither the classic 18 nor the 17' Montauk have a flat area in the bow where that can be accomplished, and a full stern seat is likely too short to lay lengthwise on these models, plus, she'll be in your way when manning the downriggers if she's laying out...and you don't want suntan lotion to get on your lures.

If you build a bow platform like I have, you sacrifice the seating for taking your 'rents out.

If you use a Mills system, you sacrifice that seating in front anyway as it is too low to sit under comfortably when underway (unless you're a kid or a very short adult).

posted 10-28-2008 06:29 PM ET (US)            

Here's a photo that shows what I'm talking about:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v408/andygere/ Random%20Whaler%20Photos/Flyingtop.jpg

posted 10-29-2008 06:37 AM ET (US)            

And in chop and bang conditions (specific to classic 13s) I figured out the body mechanics to preserve spines and discs - you must lean way forward so pounding does not transmit from butt, through spine to neck. Never sit straight up, lean and absorb the shock from waist down or like me suspend slightly with quads like riding a horse.

posted 10-31-2008 10:12 AM ET (US)            

http://s212.photobucket.com/albums/cc91/71outrage/?action=view& current=holloween010.jpg

posted 11-03-2008 02:31 PM ET (US)            

Best